Lorne Sabsay

The young person appealed a custodial sentence, arguing it violated the parity principle given the non-custodial sentence imposed on a co-offender.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the parity principle and relevant statutory provisions, and was justified in concluding the seriousness of the offences placed the offender within the exceptional circumstances of s. 39 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The appellant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial was rendered unfair by numerous instances of improper conduct by Crown counsel, including the use of leading questions to elicit crucial evidence from the primary Crown witness, improper cross-examination of the Crown's own witness, and an abusive cross-examination of the appellant.

The Court of Appeal agreed that Crown counsel's innumerable transgressions of the rules of procedure, combined with the trial judge's failure to intervene and erroneous admission of unqualified expert opinion evidence, deprived the appellant of a fair trial.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for attempted murder, aggravated assault, and discharging a firearm with intent to wound, as well as his sentence of eight years and six months.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on identification evidence and in reviewing the theory of the defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury was properly instructed and the review of the defence theory was adequate.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the offence was a premeditated, unprovoked act of violence with a firearm causing life-threatening injuries, and the sentence was within the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed his attempted murder conviction arising from a gang invasion of a karaoke bar, arguing that the trial judge misdirected himself on the principles governing eyewitness identification evidence.

The court held that the identification case was very strong, based on circumstantial evidence and the eyewitness identification of two persons, and found no error in the trial judge's treatment of that evidence.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal sentence, submitting that a three-year sentence for extortion should have been concurrent rather than consecutive.

The court held that, regardless of that issue, the total sentence of 18 years, taking into account two years of pre-trial custody, was entirely appropriate.